At this point micah you are repeating challenges I've already answered and you continue to change the subject. I will go through and correct all of your misunderstandings below for shits and giggles, but I will not repeat what I've already explained and I will ignore your insane ravings and off topic remarks. I will also repeat my previous challenge in my concluding paragraph.

micah1116 wrote:I'm not changing the subject...

Then answer my challenge to you which I laid out at the end of my last post.

micah1116 wrote:It is impossible for evolution to proceed by a continual loss of information.

Why?

micah1116 wrote:"We already know from fossils that many theropods already had feathers and that modern aves have lost many features since evolving from maniraptorans." Thisa assumption is unsupportable and hypocritical. If dinosaurs already had feathers, it is illogical to believe feathers evolved for the purpose of flight.

They didn't. Feathers have a variety of functions other than flight, including insulation, mating displays, a way to look bigger to frighten rivals or enemies, ext.

micah1116 wrote:"Add that with what we know about dinosaur phylogeny the line leading up to birds experienced a net loss in genome size, thus a loss of what you call information."

We know no such thing. Phylogenetics demonstrates only that creatures which share a common environment were designed to have similar features because these features make them best suited for thier environment.

micah1116 wrote:Many creatures share features such as a toothy mouth and other features which evolutionists claim is because they're related by evolution, but these creatures defy evolution because of the great morphological differences between them, and features such as mimicry - the abilities to change the color, texture, and shape of their skin to simulate the enivronent or other creatures.

So now you do admit that changes in shape, size, and color is evolutionary change?

micah1116 wrote:Creatures which evolutionists believe are not related by related by evolutionary ancestry, such as cuttle fish, octopus, squid, camelion, and other creatures, don't share mimicry. But evolution can't provide an explaination for mimicry because nature can't provide a mechanism whereby a creature could posess from birth an ability to mimic it's environment, or the features of the creature which produce mimicry.

Nature selects organisms which bear traits which look more like a poisons species, plants, or any other thing which a predator wouldn't notice or want to eat.

micah1116 wrote:Yolk Sac - evolutionists claim the yolk sac of humans and chickens is evidence we are distantly related. In chickens, the yolk sac nourishes the embreyo during development. But in humans the yolk sac does not nourish the embryo because humans are attached to their mother by the umbilical cord. The yolk sac instead is the source of the human embryo's first blood cells. Here we see that homologous features are not evidence of evolutionary ancestry, but are instead elements of common design.

You really seem to be unaware that you are bringing up evidence against your position. Homologous organs are evidence of evolution and so is the presence of a yolk sac in embryonic development. After all if we never descended from primitive egg laying "reptile-like mammals" or "mammal-like reptiles" but were designed in present form, why would we have these traits?

micah1116 wrote:Ernst Heakel promoted this concept over a century ago and was ridiculed and shamed for it.

Heakel was ridiculed for his fraudulent drawings and his incorrect beliefs that he could produce a Darwinian-Lamarkian synthesis, which is what some creationists seem to think evolution is. While his idea that embryology would show adult species in animals evolutionary history was disproved, the core idea, that embryology is a good line of evidence to construct phylograms has been vindicated by recent research in the study of evo-devo.

micah1116 wrote:This idea became known as "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny." He proposed that the transverse clefts the necks of human embryones are vestigial of fish gills, and that this was evidence that embryology provides evidence of ancestry. This is false however, as it is now known that the first of these pouches develop into the palatine tonsils, the sencond become the middle ear cannals, and the 3rd and 4th become the parathyroid and thymus glands.

Again wrong. The first jawed fishes developed their mandibles from modifications in the pharyngeal arches which support the gills. Similarly when synapsids were diverging from basal amniotes the post-dentary bones developed into the complex parts of the middle ear. And you know what this is exactly what is indicated both in embryonic development and in the fossil record. Like I said in my second post, you really should read "Your Inner Fish". Stop trying to spin evidence as being fraudulent especially when scientists have corrected said errors and presented evidence in concordance with what is correct. Creationists on the other hand did nothing.

micah1116 wrote:Humans born with what looks like a tail is merely a piece of skin covering fat, and is caused by an error in the way the spinal system develops as it "zippers shut" going downward. When it does not go far enough, it causes Spina Bifida. When it goes too far, it produces what evolutionists falaciously call a vestigial tail.

Actually some of these atavistic tails do have fully developed muscles, articulating discs, nerves, muscles, and caudal vertebra, so they are true tails. This is not consistent with spina bifida. The two are so easy to distinguish, you must have just glanced at a creationist article and regurgitate what you read without any understanding.

Spina bifida

Atavistic tail

micah1116 wrote:Though discredited by modern science, the concept of Phylogenetics being evidence of evolution is still pushed by evolutionists. For example, the university text book titled BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine continues to provide photographic examples of the embryos of various species, including humans, and claim it is evidence of evolution. In fact, This book contained the illustrations of Earnst Haekel until creationists complained that Haekel's drawings had been revealed as falacious, at which time Miller asked the publisher to replace them with newer illustrations of the same sort.

I'm not going to continue sifting through this and pointing out what else you've gotten wrong. This video by a scientists who actually does study cladistic taxonomy, aka phylogenetics, does a great job in doing so.

micah1116 wrote:Phylogenetics was invented by creationists...

Wait so a system of classifying life according to an origin of common descent being driven by natural selection was invented by creationists? You really don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

micah1116 wrote:The fact that changes during embryonic development require information which is provided by the the presence of all homeobox genes is a problem for evolutionists claiming that similarities in the embryonic cells of creatures of different phylum is evidence of common ancestry between the phylum because the changes which occur to these cells is based upon epigenetic information which requires the entire genome of the organism to be fully in tact - the genome of a phylum.

You should keep up with studies like this one. If you had you might know how wrong that statement is.

micah1116 wrote:This demonstrates that the similarity in the embryonic cells is not based upon similarity, but difference.

So you're seriously arguing that similarities are based on differences?

micah1116 wrote:Furthermore, the cells of germ layers are not directly related to each other across genus. For example, the cells of germ layers which develop the heart in humans don't develop a heart in worms.

What do you mean by "worms"? That's a polyphyletic term used to describe a variety invertebrates in different clades. I'd also like to get your source on that as I'm pretty sure the heart in at least most worms as well as humans develops from the mesoderm.

micah1116 wrote:Thus, germ layer cells themselves are not related to structure homogenously across genus, and germ layers are not evidence of evolutionary ancestry, and the claim that because humans and worms have 3 germ layers they are related by a divergent evolution event long ago.

So it looks like you skipped over my post on the Cambrian then.

micah1116 wrote:"For example AL-288-1 is an adult female Australopithecus afarensis, and we've also found the remains of infants of that same species like the DIK-1/1 specimen." Finding both adolescents and adults of an extinct ape does not provide evidence of evolution. That's a no-brainer.

I provided those examples to prove that you were lying when you said that "supposed" hominids are just juvenile extant African apes.

micah1116 wrote:"you talk about ape ontogeny which, but don't realize that when you compare the development of chimps to us you'll find it's nearly the same. The only major difference between two of us is that we retain a pedomorphic build and an increase in cranial volume." False. Firstly, the human brain develops 3 times faster than apes. This discredits evolution, s there is no explaination how evolution could cause suddently an organism's brain to develop 3 times faster than it's supposed ancestor.

You have not. Nobody is "bastardizing" the definition of morphology, you just don't like facing the facts regarding morphology because it refutes evolutionism. Mporphology ids the form and structure of a life form. Form AND structure.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are a Nephilimfree sock account now.

micah1116 wrote:I can provide you with 100 quotes by evolutionist scientiwsts who state the fossils indicate only non-change and that the lack or absence of transitional forms is a problem for evolution.

Correction, you can provide 100 quote mines.

micah1116 wrote:"Yes we do. Don't take this the wrong way, but do you remember your childhood? Don't you remember losing your "baby" teeth in primary school and new ones growing back?"

I misspoke. Humans have deciduous molars. Apes do not. This is a morphological difference. There is no evidence of this transition either!

Yes other apes do have decidious molars.

Unless of course you're going to argue that this australopith child qualifies as being human.

Wrong. The Taung child was not a chimpanzee. Also you are arguing against yourself again, both by admitting that the Taung child had deciduous molars, and by link an a pic of an australopith jaw illustrating the development of a parabolic jaw.

Compare that with this

micah1116 wrote:Zuckerman suggested that they be classified as apes, not hominids (Evolution as a Process, 1954)...

And that claim was disproved half a century ago.

micah1116 wrote:There are differences in the robustness of different bones in humans as well, even in the slope of the forehead which can vary greatly in humans. In some humans, the forehead is nearly vertical. In others, it slopes dramatically.

Define "dramatically", because the slop of the forehead in our species is pretty limited compared to extinct fossil forms.

micah1116 wrote:This is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence of variety within the kind. We know this: chimps and gorillas have this ridge, as do australiopethicenes, humans do not.

The how are you defining "apes"? You stated that the posterior placement of the foramen magnum was a character indicative of apes, and anterior placement was something which you implied was a human trait. And the fossil I presented above as well as all other homininds mentioned so far have there spines connected to the base of the skull rather than the rear, just like bipedal humans and aves.

micah1116 wrote:"Then Homo neanderthalensis, H. erectus, and all other species in the genus Homo, except us, should all be considered apes, and we shouldn't be?"

Furthermore, the hot swapping points of the DNA of apes and man are almost entirely different. It is not possible for these to migrate, as the change of one of them would cause either gross deformity or death.

Source please.

micah1116 wrote:"These proteins are what make humans and chimpanzees distinct species, and 80% of these protiens are not completely different from our own."

False. Gene, volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219, states, referring to the protien difference between humans and chimps, I quote: "However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... eaab34f1afI suppose now you are going to claim these scientists have their information wrong? Perhaps you did not actually read what their paper says? Surely you saw this statement in the abstract. Didn't you?

No, no, and yes. I, unlike you, read the whole paper. You've been called on this already. Had you read it you would have known that the protein differences are due to a relatively small amount of mutations, most of them being almost the same.

Credit: Glazko et al 2004.

Way to be called on a lie for the third time.

micah1116 wrote:"Then species like the neanderthals are apes, and we aren't?"

Neanderthal was not an ape. It was an inbred, disease-ridden, genetically destroyed tribe of man. They suffered from rickets and scurvy and arthritis and their DNA was made into a mess by random mutation and inbreeding. That's why they became extinct. Their skeletons are fully human but deformed because of disease.

They were fully human, just not the same species we are. And no, they were not disease ridden humans or apart of our species. We've found hundreds of them, including male and female adults as well as small children, and even there DNA proving you wrong on both accounts. Further more another character you claimed separated humans from apes was a barrel chest, which is something H. neanderthalensis had, as well as some H. erectus, but we lack. So according to you both of these species qualify as apes.

micah1116 wrote:"Besides that does this now mean that some australopith species no longer qualify as apes since their hallux are no longer divergent?"

Your question is unworthy of response...

I'll repeat this question too until you answer it, does this now mean that some australopith species no longer qualify as apes since their hallux are no longer divergent?

Are they now? I suppose you could tell me which of these curved phalanges belong to a human and which belong to a gorilla. And why is it that both of them are curved and look so similar?

Though this is not morphological difference, it does not provide evidence of evolutionary change. It demonstrates only difference between man and ape.

micah1116 wrote:Encyclopedia Britanica:

"Polyploid animals are far less common, and the process appears to have had little effect on animal speciation."

w w w . britannica . c o m / EBchecked / topic / 469046 / polyploidy

I agree. I said so in my other post.

micah1116 wrote:Thus, if chromosome 2 were merged in a human, it could not breed, and the mistake dissapears in the gametes of that person (sperm or egg cells) in a single generation - for good - when that person dies. It cannot therefore be hereditary in humans.

micah1116 wrote:"What do you mean? What part of evolution requires that humans have more DNA than our cousins?" The 10% more DNA of chimps discredits evolution because it would indicate, for evolution, that humans have lost 10% of their genetic information.

Yeah this evidently happened and I provided a source for you to check it out for yourself.

micah1116 wrote:This would obviously be disasterous for any living thing.

Obviously not.

micah1116 wrote:Are you claiming the loss of 10% of the genome of an organism will not only allow it to survive or cause it to become something with new, greater capabilityies, such as becoming bipedal and increasing the number of bones in the skeleton and having a brain 3 times the size of chimps?

Evolution is not about becoming "greater" it's about adaptation to changing conditions.

micah1116 wrote:"but I'd like to get your source on the information provided above."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3003370Humans have two ÃŽÂ±-globin genes; HBA1 and HBA2, which are both at locus 16p13.3 ("HBA1," nd; "HBA2," nd). Not only do chimps also have two ÃŽÂ±-globin genes (Liebhaber & Begley, 1983), but "human and chimpanzee G-gamma, A-gamma, alpha, and beta globin sequences are identical (Goodman, Moore, & Barnabas, 1972, p.43)." If you want more, there are plenty of them. Google will turn up plenty of information for you, though it will be filled with evolutionist assumptions that this difference evolved.

Wait, so now you're admitting that your sources state that these sequences between humans and chimps are identical! You are arguing against yourself again, man.

micah1116 wrote:"And why does this minor difference, according to you, separate humans from the family of great apes?"

Minor? There is nothing minor about basic differences in the design of the DNA of apes and man.

I'd call a 1-2% difference minor.

micah1116 wrote:"Any extant non-human ape"

No, all apes. The human brain is 3 times larger than any ape known, past or present.

Yeah I did kinda fuck up that sentence. However the point I made in that paragraph was that there are lots of extinct apes with a variety of cranial capacity, which disprove your statement above.

micah1116 wrote:"In fact H. neanderthalensis had a much larger cranial capacity than we do."

That is false. It is the same size and sometimes a bit larger. You have stated a gross exaggeration, a falacy.

Don't project your own faults in to me. You even admit that they are the "same size and sometimes a bit larger". So once again you are disagreeing with yourself. You even posted previously that a neanderthal was found (the "Old man" find) with a cranial capacity over 1600. Compare that to humans which averages to be about 1400 cc. In fact some H. neanderthalensis have been documented having a cranial capacity which exceeds 1700 cc.

micah1116 wrote:"Most anthropoid primates, like ourselves, have trichromatic vision. So why are you pointing out the exception, rather than the rule?"

It's a difference between man and ape.

All apes are trichromates, as are most anthropoids. It's one of our defining characteristics.

micah1116 wrote:"Wrong. Australopith remains date from about four million years ago until about two million years ago."

Actually your source provides a variety of dates (3.5-1.5 mya) for the Sternkfontien strata, which historically have been difficult to date. However it does provide the possibility along with evidence that the strata is younger than two million years, so I accept that. But why are you citing this? I thought you rejected radiometric dating outright?

Swing and a miss. This source provides a date for a robust species of aurstralopith which have been given their own genus, Paranthropus. Most taxonomists, anthropologists haven't gone with that method of classifying those animals in decades. And I have made that distinction clear in my earlier posts. I will ask that you use current data and terms.

micah1116 wrote:"Further more the study you reference actually comes to the opposite conclusion that you say it does."

I could not care less about the assumptions of evolutionists. The bones don't lie.

Then why did you cite a study and then say it came to conclusion opposite of what it really did? And you're right bones may not lie, but you do.

micah1116 wrote:"Not really."

Yes really, YOu did not answer my question: Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?

Reread my post.

micah1116 wrote:"This is why some experts debate as to whether or not they should be placed in the genus Australopithecus or kept in Homo, and why they are a perfect transitional species."

They argue about thier classification because classifying them as ancestors of man is perposterous, ans my wquestion illustrates. How can they be a perfect transition when they were incapable of bipedalism?

So you are now arguing that habilines weren't bipeds despite what you say in you post right above?

miccah1116 wrote:"Why is it that creationist seem to be unable to decide if (as well as some of the H. erectus individuals you mentioned earlier) they are "100% human" or "100% ape"?"

The image you provide is fraudulent because it implies creationists classify apes as human. No creationist classifies apes human.

No it's genuine and they evidently do. Check my source. Dr. Duanne Gish, for example, argued that the Turkana boy skeleton was "just human" but he also argued that the Java man skull cap, of the same species, belonged to a large monkey or ape. Even though the Java skull cap exceeds the cranial capacity of the Turkana boy skull, and bears obvious H. erectus traits. So yes, creationist do argue that humans are apes, and that fossil hominids are human. We are 100% both!

micah1116 wrote:Evolutionists classify humans as apes and slap the titles Hablis and Erectus on any fossil skull that shows variety.

Are you arguing that Homo habilis and H. erectus are "just apes" then?

micah1116 wrote:"The habilines are a perfect morphological intermediate between australopiths and derived humans" You're welcome to believe that, but if you do, you should tell me what makes them so.

Their cranial capacity is intermediate between those of derived humans and australopiths. They bear derived post-crania including femurs and feet, smaller teeth and lack megadontia, show signs of heightened intelligence as indicated by (although not the first) stone tools.

As others have pointed out and I've noticed over the past few exchanges you keep changing the subject and I keep proving you wrong. Now I'll ask that you be accountable and concede all of these points. If you disagree then let's go through and you can bring up a single point (as listed above) in your next post contesting what I haven't adequately refuted and we'll go from there. I will continue to press this point until you answer my challenge.

You wanted for me to answer your challenge. I've seen no evidence for evolution. Please go over again the new structures you are talking about, I've not seen any. Just show me the exact structures your talking about that weren't there before and are now there.

micah1116 wrote:You wanted for me to answer your challenge. I've seen no evidence for evolution. Please go over again the new structures you are talking about, I've not seen any. Just show me the exact structures your talking about that weren't there before and are now there.

So you are still arguing that I haven't shown you any examples of new structures? Thank you for at least answering my challenge.

Evolution typically produces new features gradually by simply changing what is already there as I've already illustrated. For example generations of female Diopsid flies selecting males with a particular trait, in this case width of the head and location of the eyes this gradual has produced a "stalk". This doesn't even require new genes, but a change in what is already present.

This same process is the origin of the massive tail feathers of widowbirds and peacocks. This is also the same process by which the massive "antlers" of stag beetles as well as the now extinct Irish elk (Megaloceras giganteus) developed and one of the driving forces behind the evolution of the neck of giraffes.

A good example of new features arising in animals without sexual and instead exclusively ecological selection can be seen in polar bears. Polar bears have a variety of features which are nothing more than what you and I agree already can happen, for example increase in neck length, change in fur color, digit webbing and so on. We also know from genetic tests that some populations of brown bears are closer to polar bears than they are to other brown bears, plus both "species" can, though rarely do, hybridize with each other. This coupled with fossil forms dating to around the same time molecular clocks estimated the split occurred means that we an pretty confidently say that polar bears definitely evolved from brown bears, and this is a fact that even other creationists will admit. However in the 150,000 years (that's a blink of an eye on a geologic timescale) they've been (mostly) genetically separate from brown bears, polar bears have evolved novel features, not found at all in their parent species, to adapt to the arctic. For example polar bears have small papillae and vacuole-like suction cups on their feet, specialized matting to prevent frost bite, and changes to their metabolism to accommodate an hypercarnivore lifestyle & for hibernation.

In the case of plants we have examples of a continual change in morphology due to a selective pressure. For example man has bred corn for thousands of years, specifically selecting for sex organs with higher seed yields.

This process of domestication has lead to maize with massive "ears" and an overall body plan which appears, superficially, to look nothing like it's common ancestor, teosinte. And despite these seemingly drastic differences all that has changed is a few genes being brought about by random genetic variation being selected for gradually.

Now couple this process with the generation of a *brand new* feature in a different plant species. In 1997 two groups of researchers at the university of Berkley reported a mutant Arabidopsis which displayed a pickle shaped growth on its tap root. The growth was due to a single mutation, dubbed pkl, which disrupts the function of a growth hormone, gibberellin, thus changing the development of the primary root of the plant.

Credit: Ogas et al 1997

Researchers reported that the root tissues of the mutated plant "spontaneously regenerated new embryos and plants". The affected tap root in addition to having a new morphology, also harbors an excess of oils, proteins, and starch. Current research focuses on finding analogous mutations in different plant species to easy hunger shortages in third world countries.

Just like domesticated corn (and in natural populations which are under the drive of natural selection) this novel phenotype was brought about through simple random changes is being selected for and will be modified (although over the course of decades rather than millenia) exactly how evolution predicts. Also, I couldn't find a free link to download the pdf so you can either get access to the paper on a university campus (the wi-fi router should grant access to most scientific publications) or you can read a summary of the research at sciencedaily.

Even in case where we observe novel changes subtly changing the phenotype it's important to remember that in all cases these features are being built of off what is already present and being modified by selective forces. An example I gave in an earlier post was a reference to an experiment by Martin Boraas and colleges in the nineties. The researches took a tank of single celled alga (Chlorella vulgaris) which had been growing continuously in a unicellular state since 1974. The researchers decided to introduce a protist predator (Ochromonas vallescia) which began to decimate the alga population. Over the course of several generations the alga population dropped and the protist population increased. Then the protist population fell followed due to lack of prey followed by an increase in the alga population. This repeated until the researchers observed ten days (about 10-20 alga generations) into the experiment noticed a multicellular alga form began to grow among the unicellular population during a recovery period. These colonial forms were made up of multiple modified cells which ranged between a dozen and several hundred cells growing on top of each other.

Credit: Boraas et al 1998

While this did grant them immunity from being preyed upon not all of the cells were exposed to an equal amount of light or nutrients. Within six days the unicellular forms were reduced to less than one percent of the of the alga population, and the colonial forms had not only began to dominate the alga population but refined themselves to about twenty cells per colony so all of the cells in the "body" had an improved chance to acquire nutrients. Later the unicellular forms and the protist predators were reduced to about 0.1% of the population. And further on the colonies refined themselves again to an eight cell form so all of the cells could acquire light and nutrients. At this stage they also displayed a distinct morphology, being roughly spherical (other shapes were reported but not as common) with typically eight cells a colony. The cells were also able to replicate indefinitely and maintained their colonial forms even when the protist population was reduced.

Modified from Boraas et al 1998The division of a daughter cell dividing from the mother cell.

The colonial cells are surrounded by the modified mother cells cell wall in an "envelope" and adhere to each other by their own modified form of cell wall. Now compare that with what we see in the real world,

Volvulina steinii

One of the most primitive multicellular organisms we have. The plants in this alga genus include spheroidal colonial species which range in cell number from 4, 8, 16, or 32 cells.

Now we know that the trait wasn't already present because the alga didn't express this trait until after the predator-prey oscillations began. The alga also continued to evolve continuing to improve their morphology. Colonies with a morphology which conferred an improved ability for all cells to acquire nutrients and access to sunlight. We also know that the colonies were genetically distinct because the mother cells displayed a different morphology when aging. In addition to this the multicellular forms had adapted to a specific high-lighted environment, because they were out competed by unicellular forms when placed in darkened environment. Also the researchers were able to replicate these results, but only 70% of the time. If it were a trait already present it should have been one hundred percent so it obviously resulted from a single or a few mutations.

Even in unicelled organisms new features can arise with surprisingly little changes, but again these features arise from just changing what already exists. For example advocates of intelligent design argue that certain cellular features like the bacterial flagella couldn't have come about through a sequence of random mutations. And I agree, after all this feature is much too complex to simply have been the result of a series of multiple accidental mutation leading to an acid powered molecular motor, but of course the scientific perceptive doesn't say that it should. Just like in multicellular life, single cells are subjected to the forces of natural selection and their cellular machinery can be and often is used to perform different functions being produced through "numerous, successive, slight modifications" exactly as evolution predicts. In the case of the flagella there are a variety of functions that the proteins which make it were used for, prior to being a flagella, and decades of research have given us a pretty good idea of how that structure evolved.

Some young earth creationists also make similar arguments regarding the complexity of our eukaryotic cells and how, they claim, couldn't have evolved. However the answers again are surprisingly simple. One of the things which separates our domain from archaens and bacteria are the complex machines in our animal cells are called mitochondria. These molecular machines are often referred to as the "cells power plants" and are responsible for our cells metabolism, differentiation, apoptosis, and other lots of other functions. They even have their own genome!

In the early twentieth century a Russian botanists Konstantin Mereschkowski, being inspired by the work of Andreas Schimper two decades earlier, suggested that eukaryototic organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria were the result of the absorption and evolved dependency of several bacterial cells within a larger host cell. The idea wasn't revived until decades later by Lynn Margulis who coined the term the "endosymbiotic hypothesis". The idea isn't too much of a stretch considering bacteria, like mitochondria and plastids, reproduce via binnary fission, share similar small sizes and smaller genomes than eukaryotes do, have similar ribozomes, and possess other traits which resemble each other more than do eukaryotes.

The same year this hypothesis was being popularized by Dr. Margulis, Dr. K. Jeon and I. Lorch first reported (here's a review of their research over the past several decades) finding a strain of Amoeba proteus, called strain xD, which was infected by a bacteria, called XB.

Amoeba proteusBy the way this is part of the reason I chose my LoR username XD

The infectious cells displayed several distinct novel traits after infection, including heightened cell growth and host dependency. Specifically the infectious cells, or endosymbionts, become dependent on their hosts within about 200 cell generations, or 18 months. One of the reasons why is because the researchers noted that the host cell lost the ability to transcribe several proteins weeks after infection, and those proteins were instead controlled by the endosymbiont cells. On the other hand the endosymbionts also are capable of synthesizing their own proteins, but need resources from the hosts cytoplasm, and when the two are removed they both die. This type of dependency is exactly what the endosymbiotic hypothesis predicted and as huge implications of what we understand about biology. This also proves that macroevolution does happen, complex cellular machinery can arise through material mechanisms, and that new features can and do evolve. As PZ Meyers put it on his blog, the pandasthumb,

Reflect, now, on the ramifications of this system. Organelles such as the chloroplast and mitochondria arose by endosymbiotic events. What we see with xD amoeba are the early stages of another such event. The xD strain is dependent on the endosymbiont, much as plant cells depend on chloroplasts, and eukaryotic cells on mitochondria. Moreover, as is the case with more recognizable organelles, gene expression and cellular physiology in the xD strain have become interdependent, such that endosymbiont and nucleus communicate and control expression and metabolism. This system is arguably the beginnings of the evolution of a new organelle, something that would be tantamount to the origination of a new kingdom.

These studies demonstrate what I've been trying to make clear this entire debate. Evolution modifies what is already present and tinkers with it. And as I explained earlier even when new features or structures appear relatively rapidly or across several thousand of generations, they are all subjected to and modified by selective forces from an inherited morphology. We can see this now when we look at animal certain animals which have simply modified an inherited body plan, for example in tetrapods we see the same basic pattern from a common ancestor.

All this is is just variation on the same pattern. Despite their differences and change in function there are no new novel skeletal structures needed, just a change size, number, length, and proportion of what already exists. And this is the same process by which all lifeforms have evolved over ages and ages have adapted to changing conditions in the struggle for existence and as such have adapted their bodies, not through saltational leaps, but accumulated random changes being selected for and modifying what's already there. This is why evolution is properly defined as the change in allelic frequencies in reproductive populations over generations. All the sorts of changes you want to see whether it be new features, organs, or body plans result from this relatively simple process.

Now will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolutionary theory being able to account for the origin of new organs, features, and body plans?

Changes in structures that are already present isn't a new structure. How did it get it to begin with? Even if we ignore that problem, which is logically fatal to do, your still not getting a new structure. Changes can happen, but they are limited.

Are you seriously saying that chaning the size and location of an already existing structure is a new structure?

"These studies demonstrate what I've been trying to make clear this entire debate. Evolution modifies what is already present and tinkers with it. And as I explained earlier even when new features or structures appear relatively rapidly or across several thousand of generations, they are all subjected to and modified by selective forces from an inherited morphology. We can see this now when we look at animal certain animals which have simply modified an inherited body plan, for example in tetrapods we see the same basic pattern from a common ancestor."

How does this explain how they originally got their body plan? And your not showing a single new structure, changing the size,shape, and color to an already existing structure isn't a new structure. A bug that acquired wings that didn't have them before would be a new structure, not a bugs eyes moving around.

When you use words like "selected" Your showing that it's not evolution. If a trait was selected for, it was already present. Show me one structure that arose that it didn't have before. I'm not talking about chaning the shape of something already existing. For example, a bug that didn't have wings before but now does.

micah1116 wrote:Changes in structures that are already present isn't a new structure. How did it get it to begin with? Even if we ignore that problem, which is logically fatal to do, your still not getting a new structure. Changes can happen, but they are limited.

Are you seriously saying that chaning the size and location of an already existing structure is a new structure?

Reread my post. New features are built of off what is already present. For example the stalks of Diopsid flies are exaggerated parts of the exoskeleton, multicellular life is essentially multiple specialized cells stuck to each other, tetrapod limbs are simplified sarcopterygian bony fins, the bacterial flagella is a suite of recruited preexisting genes which when combined together make a fantastic motor to propel the cell through its substrate, mitochondria , plastids & chloroplasts are all modified bacterial endosymbionts, ext. And what limit are you talking about?

micah1116 wrote:"These studies demonstrate what I've been trying to make clear this entire debate. Evolution modifies what is already present and tinkers with it. And as I explained earlier even when new features or structures appear relatively rapidly or across several thousand of generations, they are all subjected to and modified by selective forces from an inherited morphology. We can see this now when we look at animal certain animals which have simply modified an inherited body plan, for example in tetrapods we see the same basic pattern from a common ancestor."

How does this explain how they originally got their body plan?

I explained that in my third post. I suggest you read it.

micah1116 wrote:A bug that acquired wings that didn't have them before would be a new structure, not a bugs eyes moving around.

So since you don't consider these stalks to be a new feature, the you must consider these flies to have the same head morphology then.

Credit: Warren and Smith 2007

micah1116 wrote:A bug that acquired wings that didn't have them before would be a new structure, not a bugs eyes moving around.

So you are changing the goals posts again. At any rate insect wings, like all evolutionary novelties resulted from a change in what was already present. In the case of wings, they evolved from modified gills. These gills were developed from outgrowths of the tracheal system which is essentially modified bits of the cuticle which gained identity during the origin of segmentation. And before that we have primitive multicellular life, which I've already explained. If you simply want to pick my brain rather than debate fine, but this isn't the place.

Also what about the other examples I presented such as the pkl mutant, polar bears, or the multicellular alga? Are you just trying to hope that I won't bring those up because that too is exactly what you asked to see, but refuse to recognize? And why don't you bring up the pic of homologous structures? After all they have the same bones, and the only differences between the them are changes in the size, length, number and proportion of bones which already exist. I guess that means that primates, carnivorans, cetaceans, and chiropterans are the same kind, right?

micah1116 wrote:When you use words like "selected" Your showing that it's not evolution. If a trait was selected for, it was already present.

Yes it is and new traits are selected for as well as I've explained. Are you deliberately not trying to learn what I'm trying to teach you?

Judging by how short you've kept your responses myself and others are beginning to suspect that you've simply run out of excuse, run out of apologetics articles to copy 'n paste, and out of steam. And if that's the case then the debate is clearly over. Seriously micah I can keep coming up with examples and evidence that prove you wrong, but I will continue to press this question until you answer it. Will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolutionary theory being able to account for the origin of new organs, features, and body plans?

"So since you don't consider these stalks to be a new feature, the you must consider these flies to have the same head morphology then."

If you can show me an actual new structure that resulted in that change, then yes they would be different. Or your changing the shape of an existing structure, it's not new. If it acquired entirely new bones to create a structure, that would be new. Can you provide me a link or source so I can actually see what your talking about?

"So you are changing the goals posts again. At any rate insect wings, like all evolutionary novelties resulted from a change in what was already present. In the case of wings, they evolved from modified gills. These gills were developed from outgrowths of the tracheal system which is essentially modified bits of the cuticle which gained identity during the origin of segmentation. And before that we have primitive multicellular life, which I've already explained. If you simply want to pick my brain rather than debate fine, but this isn't the place."

Any evidence for that claim? Gills do not have the structures that are required for wings, therefore it is impossible for gills to evolve into wings, since you said that evolution works on existing structures. Your not providing obervable evidence for your claims, your just making statements like their fact. Do you have any fossils that show gills evolving into wings? And why would a fish evolve wings when it would surely kill it? Natural selection would weed out such an organism.

"Also what about the other examples I presented such as the pkl mutant, polar bears, or the multicellular alga? Are you just trying to hope that I won't bring those up because that too is exactly what you asked to see, but refuse to recognize? And why don't you bring up the pic of homologous structures? After all they have the same bones, and the only differences between the them are changes in the size, length, number and proportion of bones which already exist. I guess that means that primates, carnivorans, cetaceans, and chiropterans are the same kind, right?"

So they are the exact same type of bones? Your wrong on that claim. Plus they develope in entirely different chromosomes. They have similarity from a common designer.

If you insists that new structures arise from existing ones, how can that explain the origin of them? If a life form evolved from a bacteria, how did it acquire blood vessels, bones, etc.

Going back to the bug, show me what structures it acquired to change it's eyes into stalks.

micah1116 wrote:"So since you don't consider these stalks to be a new feature, the you must consider these flies to have the same head morphology then."

If you can show me an actual new structure that resulted in that change, then yes they would be different.

It's obvious to me now that your misunderstanding of evolution is now simply a strawman. New features such as wings, feet and other structures do not appear de novo. Everything in biology, whether taxonomic groups or organs can be traced to basal forms. So if you think that that isn't true or simply refuse to accept it then I challenge you name a structure that isn't a modified version of something already present in its ancestor.

micah1116 wrote:Or your changing the shape of an existing structure, it's not new. If it acquired entirely new bones to create a structure, that would be new. Can you provide me a link or source so I can actually see what your talking about?

I've done this. Are you really interested in debating since you aren't apparently reading the links to my posts?

micah1116 wrote:"So you are changing the goals posts again. At any rate insect wings, like all evolutionary novelties resulted from a change in what was already present. In the case of wings, they evolved from modified gills. These gills were developed from outgrowths of the tracheal system which is essentially modified bits of the cuticle which gained identity during the origin of segmentation. And before that we have primitive multicellular life, which I've already explained. If you simply want to pick my brain rather than debate fine, but this isn't the place."

Any evidence for that claim?

I provided a link. Reread my post.

micah1116 wrote:And why would a fish evolve wings when it would surely kill it? Natural selection would weed out such an organism.

What teleosts have true wings? There are "flying" fish which have exaggerated fins allowing them to glide out of the water and on the air to escape predators. We already know that most fish will jump out the water to escape aquatic predators, so it's pretty obvious that ancestral fish with long, stiff pectoral fins were selected for, not against.

"Look at the little bastards go!" Pretty awesome, huh.

micah1116 wrote:"Also what about the other examples I presented such as the pkl mutant, polar bears, or the multicellular alga? Are you just trying to hope that I won't bring those up because that too is exactly what you asked to see, but refuse to recognize? And why don't you bring up the pic of homologous structures? After all they have the same bones, and the only differences between the them are changes in the size, length, number and proportion of bones which already exist. I guess that means that primates, carnivorans, cetaceans, and chiropterans are the same kind, right?"

So they are the exact same type of bones? Your wrong on that claim. Plus they develop in entirely different chromosomes. They have similarity from a common designer.

And why exactly does where the specific locus matter? The numbers we assign to chromosomes are entirely arbitrarily assigned for human convenience. And since genes are expressed with similar function which need to express one after the other can be located on wholly different chromosomes, why does this matter and how is it relevant to this "debate"?

Also since the three examples presented in your quoted paragraph two of them don't even have bones, is this an implicit admission that you accept these examples as being exactly what you asked for?

micah1116 wrote:If you insists that new structures arise from existing ones, how can that explain the origin of them? If a life form evolved from a bacteria, how did it acquire blood vessels, bones, etc.

Technically we did not evolve from bacteria, but if you want to know where intricate organ system evolves it helps to look at animals which still retain primitive versions of them. For example many invertebrates still have much simpler open circulation systems with primitive hearts. And these organs were simply modified sections of the germ layers. Again if you want to pick my brain that's fine but the debate is over and we can discuss this elsewhere. Simply concede these point which you are in error about and we can talk about this in the chat.

micah1116 wrote:Going back to the bug, show me what structures it acquired to change it's eyes into stalks.

Aha, so you do accept that this is an example of a new structure. At any rate reread my post I provided a link for you to read yourself.

Now if you simply refuse to accept reality that's fine, just admit it and we can go our separate ways. Or if you want to actually embrace the facts (as I suspect you may slowly be willing to) will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolutionary theory being able to account for the origin of new organs, features, and body plans?

"Aha, so you do accept that this is an example of a new structure. At any rate reread my post I provided a link for you to read yourself."

No, actually I said nothing of the sort. If eyes did indeed turn into an entirely new structure, you have to show me which structures are new, you never told me.

The flying fish don't have wings they are fins, they don't have feathers, that's my entire point. Feathers under water would be a death sentence. Do you have any fossils that show these flying fish before they had wings and fossils showing them evolving?

They were designed this way.

"Also since the three examples presented in your quoted paragraph two of them don't even have bones, is this an implicit admission that you accept these examples as being exactly what you asked for?"

No, not at all, you've shown me already existing structures changing shape, you haven't shown me that they are now fixed into the population and are an actual new structure.

For example, mutations could cause a mishapen fin, but it's not a new structure, at one point in time, it didn't have the fin according to you, how did it get it? Essentially these structures would have to arise from nothing. Nature can't produce information.

According the the article about the flies, it's just sexual selection, and it says the males in the population have longer eye stalks, and this trait makes it more difficult to fly. If they already have stalks, just shorter, and longer ones are selected for, this isn't a new structure, how can you not see this? Here's a quote from the article, that you apparently didn't read:

"On the right is the head and eye-antennal disc of S. beccarii, a stalk-eyed fly. It's about the same size, it has the SAME TWO - PART STRUCTURE."

It's not a new structure, it would be the same as having a longer arm or leg, there's nothing new here.

micah1116 wrote:"Aha, so you do accept that this is an example of a new structure. At any rate reread my post I provided a link for you to read yourself."

No, actually I said nothing of the sort. If eyes did indeed turn into an entirely new structure, you have to show me which structures are new, you never told me.

Yeah I did. At this point I think you are stalling to keep from having to admit an uncomfortable truth.

micah1116 wrote:The flying fish don't have wings they are fins...

Yeah I know, I said that these "flying" fish didn't have true wings. They are modified pectoral fins which have been selected by the environment, which also disproves one of your prior statements.

micah1116 wrote:...they don't have feathers, that's my entire point.

Which is what? When did I bring up feathers? And why did you ask to see a fish with feathers? Evolution wouldn't allow that to happen. Are you still trying to just distract from the argument at hand, again?

micah1116 wrote:Feathers under water would be a death sentence.

Really?

P.s. thnx 4 teh humeras inspirashun Anachronous Rex.

micah1116 wrote:Do you have any fossils that show these flying fish before they had wings and fossils showing them evolving?

Telepholis tenuis

micah1116 wrote:They were designed this way.

Obviously not.

micah1116 wrote:"Also since the three examples presented in your quoted paragraph two of them don't even have bones, is this an implicit admission that you accept these examples as being exactly what you asked for?"

No, not at all, you've shown me already existing structures changing shape, you haven't shown me that they are now fixed into the population and are an actual new structure.

So now you are arguing that the novelties I listed in polar bears aren't fixed in the population? That particular traits held by, and only by this group of ursine, in a population of several ten thousand animals isn't fixed? And yes the other two examples fit that criteria too. Stop making excuse micah and just admit that you were wrong.

micah1116 wrote:For example, mutations could cause a mishapen fin, but it's not a new structure...

So this has the exact same structures

as this?

Are you seriously asking us to disbelieve our own eyes just because you cannot admit that you are wrong?

micah1116 wrote:...at one point in time, it didn't have the fin according to you, how did it get it?

What didn't have fins and when did I say that? If you are referring to paired fins in primitive fish then those were modified gill arches. Those gills obviously are derived bone, which came from primitive modified cartilaginous skeletal features. And that is modified from the mesoderm, which is essentially a derived duplicated germ layer. Detailed enough from you?

micah1116 wrote:Essentially these structures would have to arise from nothing.

Wrong. All structures in biology are built of off and modified from something else. I once again challenge you to name one clade or organ which isn't modified from an ancestor or from a previously existing structure.

micah1116 wrote:Nature can't produce information.

According to your definition it can. Or are you just repeating this mantra because your faith prohibits you from openly accepting reality? Since you refuse to look at my sources here's a more "in your face" source.

The maths, what you really wanted to see, start at 4:32.

And if you want to cite the AnswersinMagic article I think you might the claim was disproved two decades prior to that creationist "argument".

micah1116 wrote:According the the article about the flies, it's just sexual selection...

Yeah I said that previously.

micah1116 wrote:...and it says the males in the population have longer eye stalks, and this trait makes it more difficult to fly. If they already have stalks, just shorter, and longer ones are selected for, this isn't a new structure, how can you not see this? Here's a quote from the article, that you apparently didn't read:

"On the right is the head and eye-antennal disc of S. beccarii, a stalk-eyed fly. It's about the same size, it has the SAME TWO - PART STRUCTURE."

It's not a new structure, it would be the same as having a longer arm or leg, there's nothing new here.

Yeah and as I explained earlier these stalks are modified sections of the exoskeleton forming a new structure. Also the passage you have above is also a misquote, but why be intellectually honest now, right? This is what PZ actually said,

"One of these imaginal discs is called the eye-antenna disc, and when examined, you can find distinct regions in it associated with each of those organs. In the pictures below, a typical narrow-headed Drosophila and its eye-antennal disc is shown on the left; it looks a bit like two discs stuck together, and the one one top (with the blue stain for the distal-less gene product) is going to form the antenna, while the larger region below it will form the eye. I've written about the eye disc before , waves of coordinated activity are going to move across it to generate the array of ommatidia of the compound eye. On the right is the head and eye-antennal disc of S. beccarii, a stalk-eyed fly. It's about the same size, it has the same two-part structure, and it has a distal-less expression domain in the antennal disk."

Your dishonestly quote mined section is highlighted in bold.

So it's pretty clear that PZ was comparing the same two part structure which is also found in Drosophila flies and, like I said these animals have acquired a new structure through modifications of the exoskeleton. So now you are having to resort to quote mining instead of trying to put forth an argument and have been called on it. Gratz micah. How can you not see how dishonest you are being? Or do you really not understand the material we are discussing? If that's the case then why are you trying to arguing against something you don't understand?

And does this have the exact same structures

Modified from Warren and Smith 2007

as this?

Modified from Warren and Smith 2007

And now it seems you are arguing that these stalks are a different feature. Is that what you are going for because it seems that you're contradicting your previous statements. Or are you intentionally choosing to remain ambiguous because you already know that once you commit to something you know I will call you on it so you can just as easily change your position to the opposite of what you said, like when I called you on humans and non-human apes having deciduous molars, among other things?

Will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolutionary theory being able to account for the origin of new organs, features, and body plans?

How am I being dishonest? LOL! Quote mining? I simply showed you a quote, why give you the entire paragraph? It's not even related to the part I showed you, should I have copy/pasted the entire article? Give me a break.

"Yeah I know, I said that these "flying" fish didn't have true wings. They are modified pectoral fins which have been selected by the environment, which also disproves one of your prior statements."

How do you know they were selected for? That statement hinges on the assumption that they didn't have them before, this is an assumption unsupported by evidence. Your making claims without any observable evidence.

"Which is what? When did I bring up feathers? And why did you ask to see a fish with feathers? Evolution wouldn't allow that to happen. Are you still trying to just distract from the argument at hand, again?"

I'm not changing the subject. You said they were wings, they are fins, not wings. So evolution wouldn't allow fish to evolve feathers, but would allow them to evolve legs? Why aren't fish today evolving legs? How come land mammals aren't evolving to adapt to life in the water? How come everything you speak of happened long ago and far away?

Show me how the fossil you posted a picture of shows a transition.

"And does this have the exact same structures."

You tell me, you haven't named a single structure that is new. For example, if something acquired a leg, the new structure wouldn't just be a leg, it would be many new structures that made the leg. Can you prove to me, it's not just an expansion of already existing structures?

If you read this article, you will see that the length of the stalks that they already have it due to a loss of amino acids or a repeat of already existing ones, it says this several times. I would copy and past the exact quotes, but it won't let me, I think they have it set up that way.

micah1116 wrote:How am I being dishonest? LOL! Quote mining? I simply showed you a quote, why give you the entire paragraph?

Because it was an incomplete misquote, you took it out of context, and then you tried to ridicule me over what you didn't understand. That's dishonest.

micah1116 wrote:"Yeah I know, I said that these "flying" fish didn't have true wings. They are modified pectoral fins which have been selected by the environment, which also disproves one of your prior statements."

How do you know they were selected for?

Life follows a pretty simple pattern, evolve or die. And these animals are using these wings for a specific function and the rest of their morphology has been adapted for this, so the most parsimonies answer is the one I gave.

micah1116 wrote:That statement hinges on the assumption that they didn't have them before, this is an assumption unsupported by evidence.

So you're just ignoring the fossil I presented earlier then?

micah1116 wrote:"Which is what? When did I bring up feathers? And why did you ask to see a fish with feathers? Evolution wouldn't allow that to happen. Are you still trying to just distract from the argument at hand, again?"

I'm not changing the subject. You said they were wings, they are fins, not wings.

Now you're just grasping at straws. I was obviously using wings in the colloquial sense.

micah1116 wrote:So evolution wouldn't allow fish to evolve feathers, but would allow them to evolve legs?

Yes. There wouldn't be a drive for fish to evolve feathers for the following reason, feathers evolved in terrestrial dinosaurs for sexual displays to mates, insulation, and were later exaptated for other functions including flight. Fish wouldn't need to evolve proto-feathers or even hair, because they, unlike mammals and dinosaurs, are cold-blooded. Feet on the other hand were later modified for crawling on land allowing them to exploit a new niche.

micah1116 wrote:Why aren't fish today evolving legs?

Because tetrapods and insects already dominate the land and all terrestrial ecological niches. Evolution isn't a ladder of ascension and organisms don't want to evolve. However we know from extant life and from fossils that evolution will repeat itself under the right circumstances. For example the "snake" shape has evolved in serpentes, anguids, and ancient amphibians. We currently can see Australian skinks following this pattern to adapt to a specific niche. So it is possible that teleosts or perhaps marine crustaceans would evolve fill the vacant metaphorical shoes of land dwelling animals if all of our terrestrial fauna went extinct.

micah1116 wrote:How come land mammals aren't evolving to adapt to life in the water?

I would come up with a witty response to this, but Anachronous Rex beat me to it.

Anachronous Rex wrote:

How come land mammals aren't evolving to adapt to life in the water?

Beaver is chuckling at your ignorance:Otter just can't stand to listen to this nonsense any longer:Sea Lion is is indignant at your implication:And Leopard Seal is just pissed off:

He just makes it so easy...

micah1116 wrote:Show me how the fossil you posted a picture of shows a transition.

It displays this beginning of the development of slightly larger stiff anal and pectoral fins. Compare that species with this fish which has, although not as derived, fins of modern exocoetids.

Exocoetoides minor

micah1116 wrote:For example, if something acquired a leg, the new structure wouldn't just be a leg, it would be many new structures that made the leg.

Right...I've presented examples of this already. Are you trying to make a point about the bones that make up the leg, but you don't know their names or something else?

micah1116 wrote:Can you prove to me, it's not just an expansion of already existing structures?

Micah I'm going to explain this as simply as possible. Evolution changes existing structures and builds of off what is already there. Derived, complex features do not appear de novo. If we did see something like that, say primitive amniotes with fully derived feathers that would go against evolution. If you cannot get past this, refuse to understand this, or continue insisting that your strawman of evolution is true despite all evidence and explanation (which even other creationists agree to) then we are done.

If you read this article, you will see that the length of the stalks that they already have it due to a loss of amino acids or a repeat of already existing ones, it says this several times.

I'm trying to come to one of three conclusions. Either you didn't think I would go through and read your whole source, you are trying to lie to me about what is actually says, or you really don't have a rudimentary high school level understanding of genetics, let alone a college undergraduate understanding of genetics or biology in general for that matter. The authors reported that the stalks morphology was due to changing expression of existing genes but also included several references to variants of single amino acid repeats, specifically the repeats of the amino acid glutamine. They suggested that glutamine expression had been lost and gained in different fly species, but never discusses a lose of gene s at length, and even if they did so what. So I'm simply at a lose as to why you even bothered bring up this paper since it doesn't help your case.

micah1116 wrote:I would copy and past the exact quotes, but it won't let me, I think they have it set up that way.

You mean like this,

"Polymorphisms of single amino acid repeats (SARPs) are a potential source of genetic variation for rapidly evolving morphological traits. Here, we characterize variation in and test for an association between SARPs and head shape, a trait under strong sexual selection, in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Using an annotated expressed sequence tag database developed from eye-antennal imaginal disc tissues in T. dalmanni we identified 98 genes containing nine or more consecutive copies of a single amino acid."

And in their part of their concluding paragraph,

"Single amino acid repeat polymorphisms (SARPs) have been proposed as a genetic mechanism that can generate morphological variation. This study provides several lines of support for these claims. SARPs are over-represented among genes that contain repeated glutamine residues and influence regulation of transcription. We find that glutamine repeats exhibit levels of variation comparable to anonymous dinucleotide microsatellites and can be independently gained or lost between fly species. Genotypes at five loci independently explain variation in the phenotype of a sexually selected trait, eyestalk length, and current annotation for four of those genes is consistent with a biologically important function in eyestalk development."

So yet again you've presented evidence which argues against your position, because this paper helps explain the reason why mammalian genomes and gene number are about the same and why the creationist argument about new information being requirement for the evolution of higher taxa is entirely wrong. More often than not genes are simply re-expressed in different ways when new species, genera, families ext. are evolving rather than new genes being created.

Arabidopsis thaliana is included for the purposes of comparison.

So even if we were to ignore the previous examples I've given of new information, which you apparently have, evolution doesn't require new genes, but instead usually changes already existing genes and/or the pattern of gene expression. And finally will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolutionary theory being able to account for the origin of new organs, features, and body plans?

"Because it was an incomplete misquote, you took it out of context, and then you tried to ridicule me over what you didn't understand. That's dishonest."

I didn't do anything dishonest, were you sitting here with me while I gave you the quote? I was trying to be dishonest at all. Changing the words in the paragraph would be dishonest, I did nothing of the sort.

Showing me a picture of a leapord seal and a beaver isn't evidence for the claim that they evolved from one another, it's assumption not science.

"I'm trying to come to one of three conclusions. Either you didn't think I would go through and read your whole source, you are trying to lie to me about what is actually says, or you really don't have a rudimentary high school level understanding of genetics, let alone a college undergraduate understanding of genetics or biology in general for that matter. The authors reported that the stalks morphology was due to changing expression of existing genes but also included several references to variants of single amino acid repeats, specifically the repeats of the amino acid glutamine. They suggested that glutamine expression had been lost and gained in different fly species, but never discusses a lose of gene s at length, and even if they did so what. So I'm simply at a lose as to why you even bothered bring up this paper since it doesn't help your case."

Your statement confirms exactly what I said. When you say " due to variants in single amino acid repeats" Do you mean a mutation occured and changed the amino acid sequence, as in scrambled it up?

Also, I find it amazing that you claim I'm being dishonest for just copy and pasting a quote from an article and even giving you the entire article to read for yourself. YOU are being dishonest in saying the the stalk eyed flies stalks are a new structure. Here's a youtube video showing exactly how they get these "stalks" Show me the new structure, I'd love to hear about it.

micah1116 wrote:"Because it was an incomplete misquote, you took it out of context, and then you tried to ridicule me over what you didn't understand. That's dishonest."

I didn't do anything dishonest, were you sitting here with me while I gave you the quote? I was trying to be dishonest at all. Changing the words in the paragraph would be dishonest, I did nothing of the sort.

In order to explain this in a way that even you will understand what if I were to say this,

Christians believe that there is freedom in Christ and Jesus is the prince of peace. But Jesus said,

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Since slavery is the opposite of freedom and beating those who serve you is the opposite of peace Jesus, and therefore all of Christianity, cannot be peaceful or tolerate freedom and is therefore false.

If you understand why that would be dishonest then you understand why your quote mining was dishonest.* Hint, hint, look at the actual context of that verse.

micah1116 wrote:Showing me a picture of a leapord seal and a beaver isn't evidence for the claim that they evolved from one another, it's assumption not science.

Who said that? I only presented those images both to answer your question as to why you thought that you there aren't any mammals evolving for an aquatic lifestyle and to illustrate my point that evolution repeats itself. You trying to strawman me again too?

micah1116 wrote:"I'm trying to come to one of three conclusions. Either you didn't think I would go through and read your whole source, you are trying to lie to me about what is actually says, or you really don't have a rudimentary high school level understanding of genetics, let alone a college undergraduate understanding of genetics or biology in general for that matter. The authors reported that the stalks morphology was due to changing expression of existing genes but also included several references to variants of single amino acid repeats, specifically the repeats of the amino acid glutamine. They suggested that glutamine expression had been lost and gained in different fly species, but never discusses a lose of gene s at length, and even if they did so what. So I'm simply at a lose as to why you even bothered bring up this paper since it doesn't help your case."

Your statement confirms exactly what I said. When you say " due to variants in single amino acid repeats" Do you mean a mutation occured and changed the amino acid sequence, as in scrambled it up?

Did you read the paper that you presented? I suggest you do before asking me to answer something that is in your source and it's something I've already explained.

micah1116 wrote:Also, I find it amazing that you claim I'm being dishonest for just copy and pasting a quote from an article and even giving you the entire article to read for yourself. YOU are being dishonest in saying the the stalk eyed flies stalks are a new structure. Here's a youtube video showing exactly how they get these "stalks" Show me the new structure, I'd love to hear about it.

Are you done playing projection games, because I was the one who originally posted a link to that article and your humorous attempt at spin isn't helping you. As for the video clip, yeah "Life" was a pretty good documentary, even though I wasn't to big on Ms. Winfrey being the narrator. I'd much rather Dr. Attenborough instead.

As for the stalk-eyed flies specifically, yes they do inflate their stalks via pumping air into them, because they have evolved the genes for it, and their genes control how long the stalks can be inflated. Those with the genes for building longer stalks have been selected for. Are you seriously going to argue that butterflies and tropical fruit flies too, don't have the genes for the length size, shape and color of their wings because they pump blood into them and are all these animals in their respective species somehow are choosing the same pattern?

How them buttaphlies wings ryly got them shape. Not because they had the jeans wich codad 4 teh specific wing merpholagee, nah they wanted to make tha wings that shap. See et start out all smallish 'n crinckly at teh beginting and get all big at te ind. They flies kan mack em az big as they wanna adn how wat they luk lik they jus all chos tha saem pattern fur sum reeson. Evilutshunists are so disonists.

We know that the length of the stalks is controlled genetically because we've actually looked at the effects of inheriting these variants of genes for making them. We also know that of the hundreds of species of stalk-eyed flies there is a range in their stalk length. So we since these traits are being sexually selected for (something you seem to have agreed to) wouldn't all males pump up their stalks to the same length or is their a genetic limit to how big an individuals stalks can be as the evidence suggests? Your own source agrees with me that these traits are controlled being controlled genetically and have been shaped by evolutionary forces, specifically sexual selection, not by some absurd Lamarkian mechanism. Even a quick skim through wikipedia will confirm this.

In all seriousness micah your posts have gotten shorter and shorter with less substance and we've already gone to the upper limit to the number of posts for a normal debate. If you have any finally points to make it'd be a good idea to make them soon. I will remind you that you are ignoring the other examples I've given of changing morphologies and the development of new structures. You are also ignoring completely the point I made about new information and genome sizes through out diverse lifeforms. As far as I'm concerned this debate ended several posts ago and I've just been trying to coax you into making honest admissions about reality as well as refuting some of your misinformation and misunderstandings in the process, so I'll summarize my final points below.

Now your chaning your story, first you said it was an entirely new structure, not the story is that they evolved the genes to inflate air into them. Again, show me the new structure, inflating air into an existing one, which is a rather funny process isn't a new structure. I've been trying to point this out all along. Your trying to convey that you've provided enough evidence that organisms can evolve new body plans. Showing me a fly that pumps air into it's already existing eye stalks isn't evidence for that claim.

micah1116 wrote:Now your chaning your story, first you said it was an entirely new structure, not the story is that they evolved the genes to inflate air into them. Again, show me the new structure, inflating air into an existing one, which is a rather funny process isn't a new structure. I've been trying to point this out all along. Your trying to convey that you've provided enough evidence that organisms can evolve new body plans. Showing me a fly that pumps air into it's already existing eye stalks isn't evidence for that claim.

Micah I would tell you to reread my last post and go through all my sources both in my last post and all my other posts but you obviously haven't been paying attention and don't care. Also you, for the last several posts now, just keep repeating the same question which I've already addressed and you have nothing of substance to offer. Added to that you keep repeating the same ol' creationists logical fallacies, misinformation with shoddy research which can be exposed even after a three minute google search. This lack of interest in an honest discussion combined with examples I cited earlier prove to me that you are nothing more than a lowly troll. And to that I say cya!

Hey Aught3I think this "debate" is over and I'm done with this creationist troll.

I could really care less if you want to end this debate. If you think that a fly being able to pump air into it's eyes is enough evidence to ignore what the bible says, then that's your decision and you'll have to live with it. Your problem isn't with me, the problem is with your sin and God. I think you'd realize that the reason you defend the evolution view is because you have personal issues with God and you don't like what that bible says.